Atheists... why the heck are you on RELIGIOUS forums?!

[Valjean]

Then what are you preaching day in, day out??? It's doctrine and beliefs. All the time.

What am I preaching? Natural selection?
I state demonstrable facts and point out rational errors. How is this preaching?

In re atheism, what 'doctrine' have you seen me preach?

 

[Valjean]

Most of those who claim to be skeptics are hardcore believers. Maybe its a nice word to feel good but not applied in real life.

Believers in what, logic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What am I preaching? Natural selection?
I state demonstrable facts and point out rational errors. How is this preaching?

In re atheism, what 'doctrine' have you seen me preach?

Are you doing methodological naturalism or some other variants of naturalism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Believers in what, logic?

Even logic has a limit.

 

[Secret Chief]

The Spectator is an interesting read though.

On your recommendation I'll give it a go. Looks good actually.

 

[Valjean]

Really? It's a way of thinking? Wow. Maybe you think that's brand new information. Well, since you maybe looking for a thank you, I will say thank you for your schooling.

Peace,

I don't understand. I point out a non-sequitur and it's preaching?
What 'information' am I preaching, what doctrine, other than reason?

 

[Sheldon]

I’ve seen a few religious people on this site complain about the general presence of atheists on RF.
I mean, it’s called RELIGIOUS forums. So they say.
Do atheists have a place on this site? I feel like the answer is obvious, but maybe it could be addressed.
The obvious answer is yes.
So, atheist, why the heck are you here? What draws you to a religious site? Are there no adequate atheist forums?
I have this thread in the debate forum, rather than the Q&A, because, if you feel like irreligious people don’t have a place on this site, I’m interested in why. I’ve seen it said on this site, so let’s hear why you think there should only be religious people on RF.

You should have created a poll? Do us heathens get a vote?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't understand. I point out a non-sequitur and it's preaching?
What 'information' am I preaching, what doctrine, other than reason?

Of course reason is a doctrine, as is logic. That you assume their primacy is beyond question, is evidence of how ingrained they are in some cultures.

I don’t think you’re particularly preachy by the way. But you should know that your values, methods and perceptions are founded on belief in a particular orthodoxy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course reason is a doctrine, as is logic. That you assume their primacy is beyond question, is evidence of how ingrained they are in some cultures.

I don’t think you’re particularly preachy by the way. But you should know that your values, methods and perceptions are founded on belief in a particular orthodoxy.

Misuse of orthodoxy. An unwarranted generalization of a term referring to set set of scriptural religious standards set in orthodox beliefs separate from unorthodox beliefs,. Not all beliefs are based on some kind of standard orthodoxy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Misuse of orthodoxy. An unwarranted generalization of a term referring to religious the orthodox. Not all beliefs are based on some kind of orthodoxy.

No, but some certainties function in practice in the same sense.

 

[firedragon]

What am I preaching? Natural selection?
I state demonstrable facts and point out rational errors. How is this preaching?

In re atheism, what 'doctrine' have you seen me preach?

I will show you in this very thread. Lets wait and see.

I don't understand. I point out a non-sequitur and it's preaching?
What 'information' am I preaching, what doctrine, other than reason?

the post you responded to was not talking about any preaching. I think you got so affected by the word preaching.

Believers in what, logic?

Lol. What logic? Why are you so affected losing sense Val? Too religious you are.

Hardcore believers in many things. Each person in your religion has varying beliefs. Hardcore. Don't get so affected like a fundamentalist. Try to use logic and reason and ask reasonable questions rather than making assumptions. If you wish that is.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, but some certainties function in practice in the same sense.

Disagree, the concept of orthodox is to differentiate one's belief system and one's religion or division thereof from others whom they consider unorthodox. In theist religions orthodoxy is based on defined standards of belief, Atheists nor agnostics rarely would ever make this distinction among atheists and agnostics.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Misuse of orthodoxy. An unwarranted generalization of a term referring to set set of scriptural religious standards set in orthodox beliefs separate from unorthodox beliefs,. Not all beliefs are based on some kind of standard orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is not a concept that applies only to religious doctrine or scripture.

And while not all beliefs are based on orthodox thought or practice, unless you are using an unorthodox definition of logic and reason, it’s safe to assume that in this case, they are.

 

[ChristineM]

Some are. We preach critical thinking as if it is the answer to everything.

Maybe you try do. I see it as a waste of energy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you try do. I see it as a waste of energy

We agree.

 

[osgart]

I'm here to see if I can get good input about the mystery that is life and existence. I'm atheist about all Gods, but I'm open to a natural creative intelligence. I'm looking for rational, reasonable insights, or novel arguments on the matter.

I'm of the conviction that there are things in reality beyond the senses, and beyond empirical discovery that influence reality. RF has a nice format, and some interesting characters, Why not RF?

 

[stvdv]

I’ve seen a few religious people on this site complain about the general presence of atheists on RF.
I mean, it’s called RELIGIOUS forums. So they say.
Do atheists have a place on this site? I feel like the answer is obvious, but maybe it could be addressed.
The obvious answer is yes.
So, atheist, why the heck are you here? What draws you to a religious site? Are there no adequate atheist forums?
I have this thread in the debate forum, rather than the Q&A, because, if you feel like irreligious people don’t have a place on this site, I’m interested in why. I’ve seen it said on this site, so let’s hear why you think there should only be religious people on RF.

I think the opposite is true. Many times Theists want Atheists to come

Some Abrahamics would love it IF Atheist convert to their religion AND hope is important too in Religions. And some Christians believe that Jesus only will come if all had a chance to hear about Jesus

So, my guess is that many Religious people love it when Atheists come to RF for above reasons, and hope they convert

Also most posts are in the non DIR Forums I think. If a Theist doesn't want to see Atheists then he only posts in his own DIR, right? But they don't, except a few

But if one hit with a "stick" would result in a conversion then there would have been a lot of hitting on each other

And I have heard some Atheists also love it when Theists accept some of their logic. At least many Atheists go to great length to explain.

In short: Different colors keep us busy and sharp. And if all criminals would fight their fights virtual then we had peace on earth

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hardcore believers in many things. Each person in your religion has varying beliefs. Hardcore. Don't get so affected like a fundamentalist. Try to use logic and reason and ask reasonable questions rather than making assumptions.

This is a great example of a phenomenon I was referring to in another thread where the theist attempts to achieve parity in a world where reason is respected and given a prominent place in the education system, but faith is not, as in the States, where evolution but not creationism is taught in the public schools. He does this with a two-pronged approach described in that thread:

• "One does this by boosting faith by giving it the veneer of science ('you have no evidence, that's mathematically and statistically impossible'), and simultaneously demoting science to just another religion and form of faith ('that's your religion, you believe in miracles'). 'I don't have enough faith to believe that' combines them by implying that the theist needs something substantial before believing what the humanist has accepted by faith."

Congratulations. You got both into one post as well, and threw in some condescension to boot. Here you are posturing as the reasonable one preaching to the poor, deluded religious fundamentalist. Sorry, but YOU wear the mantle of faith, and HE is the critical thinker - not the other way around.

This is from Amanda Marcotte:

• "I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."

Most of those who claim to be skeptics are hardcore believers.

And there it is again, whatever you mean by believer. Yes, skeptics have beliefs such as the one I just outlined regarding the two-pronged attempt at religious parity, but are not normally called believers. Your juxtaposition of the term in a sentence distinguishing believers from skeptics confirms that you mean non-skeptical believers, like you and other faith-based thinkers.

Writing reality check posts like this one is a good reason for the unbeliever to be present in a venue where theists are posting. Actually, it's much of the reason for the rise of atheism in the age of the Internet. For centuries, theists have been marginalizing demonizing atheists without much of a rebuttal. Skeptics have a voice at last, and as you can see, are not afraid to use it to correct the false claims of theists about atheists and atheism.

 

[firedragon]

This is a great example of a phenomenon I was referring to in another thread where the theist attempts to achieve parity in a world where reason is respected and given a prominent place in the education system, but faith is not, as in the States, where evolution but not creationism is taught in the public schools. He does this with a two-pronged approach described in that thread:

• "One does this by boosting faith by giving it the veneer of science ('you have no evidence, that's mathematically and statistically impossible'), and simultaneously demoting science to just another religion and form of faith ('that's your religion, you believe in miracles'). 'I don't have enough faith to believe that' combines them by implying that the theist needs something substantial before believing what the humanist has accepted by faith."

Congratulations. You got both into one post as well, and threw in some condescension to boot. Here you are posturing as the reasonable one preaching to the poor, deluded religious fundamentalist. Sorry, but YOU wear the mantle of faith, and HE is the critical thinker - not the other way around.

This is from Amanda Marcotte:

• "I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."

And there it is again, whatever you mean by believer. Yes, skeptics have beliefs such as the one I just outlined regarding the two-pronged attempt at religious parity, but are not normally called believers. Your juxtaposition of the term in a sentence distinguishing believers from skeptics confirms that you mean non-skeptical believers, like you and other faith-based thinkers.

Writing reality check posts like this one is a good reason for the unbeliever to be present in a venue where theists are posting. Actually, it's much of the reason for the rise of atheism in the age of the Internet. For centuries, theists have been marginalizing demonizing atheists without much of a rebuttal. Skeptics have a voice at last, and as you can see, are not afraid to use it to correct the false claims of theists about atheists and atheism.

Just preaching with a pinch or ad hominem.

Nevertheless, do you believe in Brahman, Maya, and preach about Karma and things like that?

 

[Suave]

I’ve seen a few religious people on this site complain about the general presence of atheists on RF.
I mean, it’s called RELIGIOUS forums. So they say.
Do atheists have a place on this site? I feel like the answer is obvious, but maybe it could be addressed.
The obvious answer is yes.
So, atheist, why the heck are you here? What draws you to a religious site? Are there no adequate atheist forums?
I have this thread in the debate forum, rather than the Q&A, because, if you feel like irreligious people don’t have a place on this site, I’m interested in why. I’ve seen it said on this site, so let’s hear why you think there should only be religious people on RF.

Maybe atheists visit religious forums for a place to vent their anger towards God! ...